ARIGO vs.

SWIFT
G.R. No. 206510. February 23, 2005.

Overview:
Respondents, while transiting the Sulu Sea, ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles
east-southeast of Palawan. Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause
and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology. In view thereof, petitioners sought, among others, the immediate issue upon the filing of their petition a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan.

The SC, in denying the petition for issuance of the said writ considered a view that a ruling on the application or non-application of
criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian,
would be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

FACTS:
The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In December 2012, the US Embassy in the
Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at
the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.” Thereafter, the ship left Japan for
Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013.

Two days later, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. While transiting the Sulu Sea, the
ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was
injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.

However, petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and continue to
cause environmental damage of such magnitude on the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental,
Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Ss to affect the ulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology. In view thereof, petitioners sought, among others, the immediate issue upon the filing of their petition a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan.

ISSUES:
1. WON petitioners have legal standing;
2. WON US respondents may be held liable for damages caused by USS Guardian; and
3. WON the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this case.

RULING:
First issue: YES. Petitioners have legal standing
Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.” Specifically, it is “a party’s personal and substantial
interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result” of the act being challenged, and “calls for more than
just a generalized grievance.” However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional
plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the
controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
               
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public right” of citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology which,
for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared that the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Such
right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
               
On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have
legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future generations.

Second issue: YES. The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control
and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS
Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were performing official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment
against said officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one
against the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of
respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
               
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the conduct of the US in this case, when its
warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within
the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically,
warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to
this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the
latter’s internal waters and the territorial sea.
                 
In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy sovereign immunity subject to the following
exceptions:
Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State –
If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and
disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea
immediately.

Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial
purposes –
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a
warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning
passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.

Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes –
With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of
warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. A foreign warship’s unauthorized entry into our
internal waters with resulting damage to marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may apply.

But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?
According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy the US considers
itself bound by customary international rules on the “traditional uses of the oceans” as codified in UNCLOS.

Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US refusal to join the UNCLOS was centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS”
regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind,” pointing out that
such “has nothing to do with its the US’ acceptance of customary international rules on navigation.”

The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s view that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will
disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear
“international responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha
reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively supporting the country’s efforts
to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warship while transiting
our internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international affairs, unwilling to comply with
the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in
Article 197 of UNCLOS

Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis –

States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through competent international
organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent with
this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.

In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the
immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter’s territorial sea, the flag States shall be required
to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages
caused by their warships or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.

Third issue: NO. The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such
as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal
case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately.
               
The Court considered a view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US
personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a
petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
               
The Court also found  unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same
vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
damages, including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the
criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law.

The Court likewise agreed with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has become moot in the sense that the
salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from this
Court. But insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef structure and marine habitat
adversely affected by the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs notwithstanding the completion of
the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral reef.

Justice Leonen’s separate concurring opinion regarding the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan:

A petition for a writ of kalikasan

is a wrong remedy
Rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases pertaines to the writ of kalikasan. It describes the nature of the
writ:
Section 1. Nature of the writ. —  The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity
authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited
by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces . (Emphasis
supplied)
The writ of kalikasan is a remedy that covers environmental damages the magnitude of which transcends both political and
territorial boundaries. It specifically provides that the prejudice to life, health, or property caused by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official, public employee, or a private individual or entity must be felt in at least two cities or provinces. The petition for its
issuance may be filed on behalf of those whose right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, provided that the group or
organization which seeks to represent is duly accredited. 
Two things must be examined: first, whether petitioners are qualified to bring this suit under the requirements of the provisions; and
second, whether there are actual injured parties being represented.
Petitioners satisfy the first requirement as they comprise both natural persons and groups duly recognized by the
government. It is doubtful, however, whether there are actual injured parties being represented. A citizen's suit on an
environmental issue must be resorted to responsibly.
Petitioners in this case also seek the issuance of a temporary environmental protection order or TEPO. Rule 7, Part III of the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides: 
SEC. 8. Issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO). — If it appears from
the verified complaint with a prayer for the issuance of an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) that
the  matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable
injury, the executive judge of the multiple-sala court before raffle or the presiding judge of a single-sala
court as the case may be, may issue  ex parte  a TEPO effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from date
of the receipt of the TEPO by the party or person enjoined. Within said period, the court where the case is
assigned, shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TEPO may be extended until the
termination of the case.
The court where the case is assigned, shall periodically monitor the existence of acts that are the
subject matter of the TEPO even if issued by the executive judge, and may lift the same at any time as
circumstances may warrant.
The applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a bond for the issuance of a TEPO.
(Emphasis supplied)
A TEPO is an order which either directs or enjoins a person or government agency to perform or refrain from a certain act, for the
purpose of protecting, preserving, and/or rehabilitating the environment. The crucial elements in its issuance are the presence of
"extreme urgency" and "grave injustice and irreparable injury" to the applicant.
Petitioners hinge the basis for this prayer on the salvage operations conducted immediately after the incident. The remedy is no
longer available considering that all activities to remove the grounded USS Guardian have been concluded. Furthermore, the
Notice to Mariners No. 011-2013 issued by the Philippine Coast Guard on January 29, 2013 effectively set the metes and bounds
of the damaged area. This notice also prohibited "leisure trips to Tubbataha" and advised "all watercrafts transitting the vicinity to
take precautionary measures."
In light of the facts of this case, I vote that the petition be also dismissed for being moot and being brought through the wrong
remedy.
FALLO: petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is DENIED.